Fantastic letter, Nicole. "Don't pay attention to Goodreads" is absolutely one of the things I regularly tell new authors when I speak with them, but that can be so difficult when Goodreads feels like one of the only "datasets" that authors have access to.
I wish Goodreads would do better by the community. But, like you said, it's just not. There's no incentive. And for the health of the community, we need to move past it.
A fantastic and well researched piece, as always. Thanks for sharing, Nicole. I've been avoiding goodreads as much as humanly possible since about three months before my debut came out. Definitely a saner, happier author without it.
I am a StoryGraph loyalist but I hate that I haven’t been able to give up goodreads for good. I would ditch them, but their extensive (and mostly reliable) data on editions, page counts, award nominations, etc are just too important for me for things like my blog. Plus they still have all the momentum when it comes to where most other reviewers are reviewing. It’s frustrating! I wish it were easier for us all to just collectively decide to leave them behind.
This is so good I actually created a substack account to say how good it is. Thank you for all the work and research that went into this.
I now have two thoughts bouncing about in my head:
1. As a bookseller I wish we would use Edelweiss as an online community review space for professional readers, imagine how powerful that could be?
2. The existence of “a community of readers” is something I am currently obsessed with. I feel as though booksellers used to have this but we don’t have it any more. I am still trying to put my finger on why. I doubt this is Goodreads’ fault, but it might be a factor.
Interesting. The most widely read Goodreads review I've ever posted is a 1 star of "The World According to Garp." I really dislike the book, but I'm embarrassed that this is the only review I've read that's been consistently read (and liked). Clearly a review that I wrote 20 or more years after publication didn't impact sales, but also clearly: venom works, at least as self-promotion. (Unintentional, in this case.)
I haven't written on Goodreads for a couple of years now. I may start again--just to keep track of books I read (I'm in 100/year territory, yes, maybe I'm boasting). But I can't say that I like the company, or their association with Amazon.
Thank you for this article; it resonated deeply with me. As a reader, I was happy to go on the site as a way of remembering what books I had read, but as an author, I stay far far away. I found that after the initial high of hearing from readers who actually bought your book, it became quite a toxic and addictive experience, not good for any author‘s mental health.
There is another alternative called Shepherd Books, in which authors make recommendations of other books similar to theirs.
"Despite the fact that publishing company workers talk about Goodreads ratings in nearly every meeting"
No??? We do not. This is a long essay that reads like it took a lot of work and I want to respect that, but I worry that this line right here betrays a fundamental disconnect. Perhaps *authors* feel like Goodreads plays an outsized role in their strategy, but I can't say the same for any Big Five or even mid-sized publishing company I have worked at, not in this decade, at least.
individual workers definitely have different experiences! i do want to say that multiple publishing sources mentioned goodreads coming up frequently in meetings, but i do hope that your experience is closer to reality and that less and less publishers think about goodreads.
Excellent article. Thanks!
Fantastic letter, Nicole. "Don't pay attention to Goodreads" is absolutely one of the things I regularly tell new authors when I speak with them, but that can be so difficult when Goodreads feels like one of the only "datasets" that authors have access to.
I wish Goodreads would do better by the community. But, like you said, it's just not. There's no incentive. And for the health of the community, we need to move past it.
A fantastic and well researched piece, as always. Thanks for sharing, Nicole. I've been avoiding goodreads as much as humanly possible since about three months before my debut came out. Definitely a saner, happier author without it.
Fantastic article, Nicole. I’ve mostly migrated to storygraph, but I still post reviews to Goodreads out of a sense of obligation.
I am a StoryGraph loyalist but I hate that I haven’t been able to give up goodreads for good. I would ditch them, but their extensive (and mostly reliable) data on editions, page counts, award nominations, etc are just too important for me for things like my blog. Plus they still have all the momentum when it comes to where most other reviewers are reviewing. It’s frustrating! I wish it were easier for us all to just collectively decide to leave them behind.
This is so good I actually created a substack account to say how good it is. Thank you for all the work and research that went into this.
I now have two thoughts bouncing about in my head:
1. As a bookseller I wish we would use Edelweiss as an online community review space for professional readers, imagine how powerful that could be?
2. The existence of “a community of readers” is something I am currently obsessed with. I feel as though booksellers used to have this but we don’t have it any more. I am still trying to put my finger on why. I doubt this is Goodreads’ fault, but it might be a factor.
Interesting. The most widely read Goodreads review I've ever posted is a 1 star of "The World According to Garp." I really dislike the book, but I'm embarrassed that this is the only review I've read that's been consistently read (and liked). Clearly a review that I wrote 20 or more years after publication didn't impact sales, but also clearly: venom works, at least as self-promotion. (Unintentional, in this case.)
I haven't written on Goodreads for a couple of years now. I may start again--just to keep track of books I read (I'm in 100/year territory, yes, maybe I'm boasting). But I can't say that I like the company, or their association with Amazon.
Thank you for this article; it resonated deeply with me. As a reader, I was happy to go on the site as a way of remembering what books I had read, but as an author, I stay far far away. I found that after the initial high of hearing from readers who actually bought your book, it became quite a toxic and addictive experience, not good for any author‘s mental health.
There is another alternative called Shepherd Books, in which authors make recommendations of other books similar to theirs.
"Despite the fact that publishing company workers talk about Goodreads ratings in nearly every meeting"
No??? We do not. This is a long essay that reads like it took a lot of work and I want to respect that, but I worry that this line right here betrays a fundamental disconnect. Perhaps *authors* feel like Goodreads plays an outsized role in their strategy, but I can't say the same for any Big Five or even mid-sized publishing company I have worked at, not in this decade, at least.
individual workers definitely have different experiences! i do want to say that multiple publishing sources mentioned goodreads coming up frequently in meetings, but i do hope that your experience is closer to reality and that less and less publishers think about goodreads.